FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 22241/08 H. against the United Kingdom

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section) , sitting on 18 September 2012 as a Chamber composed of:

Lech Garlicki , President ,

David Thór Björgvinsson ,

Nicolas Bratza ,

Päivi Hirvelä ,

Ledi Bianku ,

Zdravka Kalaydjieva ,

Vincent A. De Gaetano , judges ,

and Lawrence Early , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 May 2008 ,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 20 June 2012 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant ’ s reply to that declaration ,

Having deliberated , decides as follows:

PROCEDURE

The applicant , H. , is a British national , who was born in 1988.

The President granted the applicant ’ s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 3). He was represented before the Court by Ms L. Janes , a lawyer practising with the Howard League f or Penal Reform , in London .

The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent , Mr M. Kuzmicki , Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the automatic imposition of an indefinite notification order was a disproportionate violation of his right to respect for private life and under Article 13 that there was no means for him to challenge the imposition of the order or apply for it to be discharged.

THE LAW

After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations , by letter dated 20 June 2012 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applicant.

The declaration provided as follows:

The Government of the United Kingdom acknowledges that the applicant is subject to the notification requirements under Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and therefore is subject to a mandatory notification requirement for an indefinite period. The Applicant is subject to this requirement as a consequence of having been convicted in September 2003 of sexual assault under section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 , for which he was sentenced to 30 months ’ detention under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 and also made subject to an extended licence period of 30 months under section 85 of that Act. The Applicant was released from detention on licence in December 2006.

On 21 April 2010 , the UK Supreme Court gave judgment in the case of R(on the application of F (by his litigation friend F)) and Thompson (FC) (Respondents) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC17. The Supreme Court found that the indefinite notification requirements in section 82(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 were incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) , in particular because they do not contain any mechanism for review of the justification for continuing the requirements in individual cases.

In light of the Supreme Court judgment , the Government of the United Kingdom acknowledge that the imposition of the indefinite notification requirement on the applicant amounted to a breach of his Article 8 procedural rights as set out in Article 8(1) of the Convention.

The Government would draw the Court ’ s attention to the fact that , following the Supreme Court ’ s judgment , the Government has acted to remedy the position under domestic law. On 5 March 2012 , the Government laid before Parliament the draft Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Remedial) Order 2012. The Explanatory Note to the Order makes clear that it provides a mechanism by which a ‘ qualifying relevant offender ’ subject to indefinite notification requirements can apply for a review of the continuance of such requirements by a ‘ relevant chief officer of police ’ . The Explanatory Note also explains that the Order provides a clear basis upon which any such application is to be determined and provides for a right of appeal against a determination to the magistrates ’ court. The Government believes that the Order will remedy the incompatibility in the current provision with Article 8(1). The Joint Committee on Human Rights , in its report published on 23 May 2012 , confirms that the Order will have this effect. The Government expects that the Order will come into force in s ummer 2012. The House of Commons approved the Order on 19 June and it is expected to be debated by the House of Lords shortly.

In light of the above , and having regard to the particular facts of the Applicant ’ s case , the Government offers to pay to the Applicant the amount of EUR 2 , 000 (two thousand euros ) solely for legal costs to be converted to and paid in pounds sterling to a bank account named by the Applicant within three months of the date of the striking-out decision of the Court pursuant to Article 37 of the ECHR. This payment will constitute final settlement of the Applicant ’ s case.

The Government does not consider it appropriate to make any offer of payment to the Applicant by way of pecuniary or non-pecuniary loss as i t considers that its admission of a violation of the Applicant ’ s Article 8(1) rights i tself constitutes equitable just satisfaction. In particular , the Government notes that the breach of the Applicant ’ s Article 8(1) rights is by way of a procedural breach solely related to a lack of a review mechanism and further it does not consider that it is appropriate to speculate on the possibility of whether or not the Applicant would still be subject to the notification requirements had there been a possibility of seeking to review , them prior to the coming into force of the remedial Order. The Applicant will be able to make an application for review of the continuance of his notification requirements in due course.

On 9 July 2012 , the Court received a letter from the applicant informing the Court that he had agreed to the terms of the Government ’ s declaration.

The Court finds that following the applicant ’ s express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government the case should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties.

It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application.

In view of the above , it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons , the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases pursuant to Article 39 § 3 of the Convention.

Lawrence Early Lech Garlicki Registrar President